wps_wpp_insert_image

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses that unauthorized file paths may be silently intercepted, causing insertion failure or blank images—an important non-obvious behavior. It also clarifies the default slide selection behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two well-structured sentences: the first states the action and default, the second warns about the sandbox restriction with a suggested mitigation. No redundant words, and the critical info is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides all essential context: the action, the default behavior, the key environmental constraint, and a workaround. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is not missing critical information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the sandbox authorization caveat for the path parameter, which is not in the schema. It also reinforces the slide_index default, but does not add detail for top/left/width/height beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action: insert an image into a specified slide, with a default to the current slide if slide_index is omitted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wps_word_insert_image by explicitly mentioning slides.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides concrete usage guidance: explains the default behavior when slide_index is not passed, and gives a critical prerequisite about file authorization in the WPS sandbox, including a suggestion to place images in ~/Downloads. This tells the agent when to use it and what conditions must be met.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.